From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752973AbaFMTqT (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:46:19 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:50255 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751190AbaFMTqS (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:46:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:46:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Steven Rostedt cc: LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Lai Jiangshan Subject: Re: [patch V4 10/10] rtmutex: Avoid pointless requeueing in the deadlock detection chain walk In-Reply-To: <20140613132810.3d59fdc0@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: References: <20140611182944.108526809@linutronix.de> <20140611183853.734541303@linutronix.de> <20140613132810.3d59fdc0@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 13 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:44:09 -0000 > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Nit pick, but we should be consistent. > > The requeue path does: > > next_lock = task_blocked_on_lock(task); > /* > * Store the top waiter of @lock for the end of chain walk > * decision below. > */ > top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock); > > I know the order is not important, but we should keep the two the same, > helps in review and making sure changes to one implementation still > make it to the other, without confusing those making the changes > (like you in a few years ;) The timespan for forgetting about that is measured in weeks, if at all. No sane brain will keep itself exposed to this longer than absolutely necessary.